Thursday, December 04, 2008

Here at IB, we strive to keep our readers abreast of developments in nationalized health care systems. Recently, the boobs who run Sweden's Social Insurance Agency penalized a young lady for being out front with a particular condition:

Although Jessica Andersson had never experienced back or neck pain prior to an auto accident some six years ago, the government agency decided that her over-abundance was primarily to blame for her continued discomfort, and has decided to discontinue her disability payments.

Her troubles began when, while driving to work, her car was hit from behind; there's no indication that her airbags were deployed. Adding insult to injury, the agency's consulting physician suggested that breast reduction surgery would enable her to return to work, although who would pay for such an elective procedure is unclear (she could be left holding the bag on that, as well).

Ms Andersson begs to differ with the good doctor:

"I’m 99.9 percent sure that it wouldn’t make a difference if I had surgery on by breasts. It’s not ideal to have neck injuries and at the same time have heavy breasts, I understand that. But the injury would still be there after an operation."

No doubt.

She's now considering filing an appeal, which may run into its own speedbumps:

"I had understood authorities to be impartial, but I don’t feel that way any longer. I see this as more of a political judgment than a medical one."

That sounds right. We don't wish to bust her balloon, but these systems don't have a particularly good track record vis-a-vis the patient. In the event, we wish her the best of luck, and certainly hope she keeps those bureaucrats in her headlights.

Here at IB, we strive to keep our readers abreast of developments in nationalized health care systems. Recently, the boobs who run Sweden's Social Insurance Agency penalized a young lady for being out front with a particular condition:

Although Jessica Andersson had never experienced back or neck pain prior to an auto accident some six years ago, the government agency decided that her over-abundance was primarily to blame for her continued discomfort, and has decided to discontinue her disability payments.

Her troubles began when, while driving to work, her car was hit from behind; there's no indication that her airbags were deployed. Adding insult to injury, the agency's consulting physician suggested that breast reduction surgery would enable her to return to work, although who would pay for such an elective procedure is unclear (she could be left holding the bag on that, as well).

Ms Andersson begs to differ with the good doctor:

"I’m 99.9 percent sure that it wouldn’t make a difference if I had surgery on by breasts. It’s not ideal to have neck injuries and at the same time have heavy breasts, I understand that. But the injury would still be there after an operation."

No doubt.

She's now considering filing an appeal, which may run into its own speedbumps:

"I had understood authorities to be impartial, but I don’t feel that way any longer. I see this as more of a political judgment than a medical one."

That sounds right. We don't wish to bust her balloon, but these systems don't have a particularly good track record vis-a-vis the patient. In the event, we wish her the best of luck, and certainly hope she keeps those bureaucrats in her headlights.